Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - MP5K breifcase (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/25/2016 4:18:27 PM EDT
|
Alright, Ive posted about this a few different places. Looking more for the legality of it. Id like to build a firing briefcase similar to HKs offering.
That said there seems to be a shit ton of misinformation out there on the legality of it. So heres the situation. I have a registered SBR MP5K clone. My logic is that it would be legal since it is papered as a SBR. That said, some think the way I do and it is legal Some say it would be illegal as the gun would need to be registered as a AOW, and cannot be registered twice. Some even say the case would need to be AOWd. I believe this to be outright false. My reasoning here is that a AOWd wallet gun, the gun is the AOW, not the wallet. Thoughts? |
|
You are correct about the briefcase. Its just a case and does not require any license.
Have you tried the guys on the HKPro.com board? As a SBR I am sure you are good to go. To put a front grip on the weapon it has to be registered. As to status of AOL not sure. |
|
Quoted:
You are correct about the briefcase. Its just a case and does not require any license. Have you tried the guys on the HKPro.com board? As a SBR I am sure you are good to go. To put a front grip on the weapon it has to be registered. As to status of AOL not sure. The case by itself isn't exactly the issue. More of the issue is the SBR inside and being able to fire it inside. It would be considered a AOW at that point. I found a thread there, and it seemed to be wild speculation. I believe they said no go on there. Im just surprised there isn't a definitive answer regarding the issue with the age of the cases as well as the weapon itself. |
|
As I understand it:
If you put a pistol in the briefcase, like an SP89 or SP5K, the combination constitutes an AOW, so the pistol needs to be registered as an AOW before you do that. If you put an SBR in the briefcase, the combination does not constitute an AOW, because it's still a firearm "made from a rifle" which is part of the SBR definition. An AOW cannot be made from a rifle. If you put a machinegun, like an actual MP5K in the briefcase, it's still just a machinegun because it fires more than one round per trigger pull. |
|
Quoted:
As I understand it: If you put a pistol in the briefcase, like an SP89 or SP5K, the combination constitutes an AOW, so the pistol needs to be registered as an AOW before you do that. If you put an SBR in the briefcase, the combination does not constitute an AOW, because it's still a firearm "made from a rifle" which is part of the SBR definition. An AOW cannot be made from a rifle. If you put a machinegun, like an actual MP5K in the briefcase, it's still just a machinegun because it fires more than one round per trigger pull. This sounds right to me. Unfortunately I cant find anything solid on the matter or I would get this briefcase build going |
|
Quoted:
Wait, where? Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like you posed the question and got the answer. Someone even posted a recent response from the head of the tech branch, Gary Schaible, about SBR's and AOW's Wait, where? Uh yeah, where There has been no solid answers. On HKpro? That's not a solid answer. The issue isn't the stock being removed. The issue is the gun firing inside the case |
|
Quoted:
http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-nfa-talk/265329-sbr-mp5k-hk-briefcase-legality.html How about this one? I guess if you want something in writing on BATFE letterhead, maybe you won't find that. That's my thread over there. But if you google search, you will find they have said many different things in the past regarding this issue |
|
26 U.S. Code § 5845
(e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. 18 U.S. Code § 921
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. Who knows. I've wondered about this for a while because the ATF is so inconsistent and idiotic. A letter to the tech branch would be the only way to know. 
|
|
Quoted:
Who knows. I've wondered about this for a while because the ATF is so inconsistent and idiotic. A letter to the tech branch would be the only way to know. Quoted:
26 U.S. Code § 5845
(e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. 18 U.S. Code § 921
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. Who knows. I've wondered about this for a while because the ATF is so inconsistent and idiotic. A letter to the tech branch would be the only way to know.
Im not gunna say what I did, but I did something I always said I would never do |
|
Quoted:
Im not gunna say what I did, but I did something I always said I would never do Quoted:
Quoted:
26 U.S. Code § 5845
(e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. 18 U.S. Code § 921
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. Who knows. I've wondered about this for a while because the ATF is so inconsistent and idiotic. A letter to the tech branch would be the only way to know.
Im not gunna say what I did, but I did something I always said I would never do let us know what the letter says when you get it...... |
Yeah pretty much if you put a semi-auto Mp5k type pistol into the case it would be an AOW. If you have a full-auto Mp5K then it's cool to put it into the case because machine guns trump everything else. Since your gun is already an SBR, I'm not sure how that would work exactly. I'd ask the ATF. But if you ask me if you don't plan on leaving it in the case, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Or this might be a good excuse to go buy yourself an HK sear 
|
|
Quoted:
Yeah pretty much if you put a semi-auto Mp5k type pistol into the case it would be an AOW. If you have a full-auto Mp5K then it's cool to put it into the case because machine guns trump everything else. Since your gun is already an SBR, I'm not sure how that would work exactly. I'd ask the ATF. But if you ask me if you don't plan on leaving it in the case, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Or this might be a good excuse to go buy yourself an HK sear I wish I had a sear 
|
|
I just bought one last Thursday.....i think the case Is cool and want one..im not sure its a must have at this point.
That $1500 to $2500 probiblys beter spent towards hosts.. im think mm23e and mp5.its in hk91 right now. Ive got 12-18 months to wait so ive got several months to decide what im doing The case is cool if it was 1k id jump on it. |
|
Nothing good comes from sending letters.... |
|
Quoted:
Nothing good comes from sending letters.... Its not something I wanted to do. However I felt it needed if I am going to continue forward with this project. |
|
Quoted:
Its not something I wanted to do. However I felt it needed if I am going to continue forward with this project. Quoted:
Its not something I wanted to do. However I felt it needed if I am going to continue forward with this project. No offense, but you're wrong. Please send your letter to Santa Claus instead. 
I've seen you post for a while. I hope you figure out the right direction, but I'm not going to spell it out for you. I will say that it would be nice if the mods nuked this thread and your other one. 
|
|
Quoted:
No offense, but you're wrong. Please send your letter to Santa Claus instead.
I've seen you post for a while. I hope you figure out the right direction, but I'm not going to spell it out for you. I will say that it would be nice if the mods nuked this thread and your other one.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not something I wanted to do. However I felt it needed if I am going to continue forward with this project. No offense, but you're wrong. Please send your letter to Santa Claus instead.
I've seen you post for a while. I hope you figure out the right direction, but I'm not going to spell it out for you. I will say that it would be nice if the mods nuked this thread and your other one.
Im not going to land myself a felony over a briefcase. It seems the folks over at HKpro believe it to be legal. Sure I could build one and then tell no one about it, but when this thing is purely a novelty, it sort of defeats the purpose to build and never show off. This isn't the same as the sig brace deal. If anything this will clear up a gray area in the law. Gray areas and felonies don't mix too well for me. |
|
Quoted:
Im not going to land myself a felony over a briefcase. It seems the folks over at HKpro believe it to be legal. Sure I could build one and then tell no one about it, but when this thing is purely a novelty, it sort of defeats the purpose to build and never show off. This isn't the same as the sig brace deal. If anything this will clear up a gray area in the law. Gray areas and felonies don't mix too well for me. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not something I wanted to do. However I felt it needed if I am going to continue forward with this project. No offense, but you're wrong. Please send your letter to Santa Claus instead.
I've seen you post for a while. I hope you figure out the right direction, but I'm not going to spell it out for you. I will say that it would be nice if the mods nuked this thread and your other one.
Im not going to land myself a felony over a briefcase. It seems the folks over at HKpro believe it to be legal. Sure I could build one and then tell no one about it, but when this thing is purely a novelty, it sort of defeats the purpose to build and never show off. This isn't the same as the sig brace deal. If anything this will clear up a gray area in the law. Gray areas and felonies don't mix too well for me. I'm with Chase. This has been a question on my mind for a long time (SBR configured as an AOW, esp. If the SBR originated from a pistol rather than a rifle). Like taking the stock off your MP5K but keeping the VFG on. This is a smart question to ask. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing good comes from sending letters.... THIS 
|
|
Quoted:
THIS Quoted:
THIS God forbid someone find out if they're going to inadvertently commit a felony. This forum is getting more and more ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
God forbid someone find out if they're going to inadvertently commit a felony. This forum is getting more and more ridiculous. Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS God forbid someone find out if they're going to inadvertently commit a felony. This forum is getting more and more ridiculous. Wrong. If you have been collecting machine guns long enough like a lot of us, you will lean that many "opinions" from Tech branch that we never needed/wanted came from someone writing a letter like this. |
|
Quoted:
Wrong. If you have been collecting machine guns long enough like a lot of us, you will lean that many "opinions" from Tech branch that we never needed/wanted came from someone writing a letter like this. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS God forbid someone find out if they're going to inadvertently commit a felony. This forum is getting more and more ridiculous. Wrong. If you have been collecting machine guns long enough like a lot of us, you will lean that many "opinions" from Tech branch that we never needed/wanted came from someone writing a letter like this. wait, aren't you a member of the NFATCA? |
|
Quoted:
Wrong. If you have been collecting machine guns long enough like a lot of us, you will lean that many "opinions" from Tech branch that we never needed/wanted came from someone writing a letter like this. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS God forbid someone find out if they're going to inadvertently commit a felony. This forum is getting more and more ridiculous. Wrong. If you have been collecting machine guns long enough like a lot of us, you will lean that many "opinions" from Tech branch that we never needed/wanted came from someone writing a letter like this. Get off your high horse, cupcake. What do you suggest he do? Just cross his fingers and hope he doesn't commit a felony? Or find out in advance if what he wants to do is legal? |
|
all you have to do is read any law that is out, if not forbidden you are fine. It's just a chassis, if you do not put a stock on it then there's nothing saying it's illegal. A ransom rest is not illegal, nor are bull pup chassis that are out there. But if you write a letter, it's striking a hard line based on some jackasses opinion, variable by who you get, when you get them, what their bias is against scary briefcases and their opinion on whether or not they like it. And after that, it's no longer based on published law and rulings, but that one letter.
Unless forbidden in current law it's legal, but once you force their hand there is no flexibility |
|
Quoted: all you have to do is read any law that is out, if not forbidden you are fine. It's just a chassis, if you do not put a stock on it then there's nothing saying it's illegal. A ransom rest is not illegal, nor are bull pup chassis that are out there. But if you write a letter, it's striking a hard line based on some jackasses opinion, variable by who you get, when you get them, what their bias is against scary briefcases and their opinion on whether or not they like it. And after that, it's no longer based on published law and rulings, but that one letter. Unless forbidden in current law it's legal, but once you force their hand there is no flexibility Wouldn't it be great if it were just that simple? However, YOUR interpretation of the law as it is written may not be the same as the ATF's interpretation of that same law. That's why courts, judges and lawyers exist - to mediate those differences in the interpretation. He wants to avoid that path, so he's getting clarification of the ATF's interpretation of those existing laws. While I understand the community argument and why it's bad to box ATF into a corner in putting their view on paper, I also understand why he, as an individual, is unwilling to take the risk of not knowing ATF's interpretation. |
|
Quoted:
all you have to do is read any law that is out, if not forbidden you are fine. It's just a chassis, if you do not put a stock on it then there's nothing saying it's illegal. A ransom rest is not illegal, nor are bull pup chassis that are out there. But if you write a letter, it's striking a hard line based on some jackasses opinion, variable by who you get, when you get them, what their bias is against scary briefcases and their opinion on whether or not they like it. And after that, it's no longer based on published law and rulings, but that one letter. Unless forbidden in current law it's legal, but once you force their hand there is no flexibility Quoted:
all you have to do is read any law that is out, if not forbidden you are fine. It's just a chassis, if you do not put a stock on it then there's nothing saying it's illegal. A ransom rest is not illegal, nor are bull pup chassis that are out there. But if you write a letter, it's striking a hard line based on some jackasses opinion, variable by who you get, when you get them, what their bias is against scary briefcases and their opinion on whether or not they like it. And after that, it's no longer based on published law and rulings, but that one letter. Unless forbidden in current law it's legal, but once you force their hand there is no flexibility "All you have to do", lol. 26 U.S. Code § 5845
(e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. 18 U.S. Code § 921
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. What Chase is building meets the definition of an AOW. That we know for sure, because putting an MP5K pistol inside the briefcase makes that pistol an AOW. So the next question would be, does it meet the definition of an SBR? This is unclear. While it's a weapon made from a rifle (SBR), and has an overall length of less than 26 inches, the weapon is actually made from a rifle made from a pistol. So is it made from a rifle, or a pistol? If configured in a format without a stock, does it return to being a pistol? Or is that still an SBR? The ATF has ruled on pistol-rifle-pistol, it hasn't ruled on pistol-SBR-pistol. If it does return to being a pistol, and you then put it in the briefcase, that would be an AOW. But his gun is registered as an SBR. Is that okay? Is it tax paid = tax paid, and fine to be a different Title II firearm? Does he have to pay another $200 and have it registered as both? We don't know. If it doesn't return to being a pistol, but remains an SBR because it's a weapon made from a rifle and has an overall length of less than 26 inches, than that sounds like it's okay being configured as an AOW because it's not an AOW - it's an SBR. There's way too many unknowns because the law is written extremely poorly, shouldn't exist to begin with, and never accounted for a gun that can be a pistol, rifle, SBR, AOW, or machine gun depending on how it's set up. |
|
Quoted:
"All you have to do", lol. What Chase is building meets the definition of an AOW. That we know for sure, because putting an MP5K pistol inside the briefcase makes that pistol an AOW. So the next question would be, does it meet the definition of an SBR? This is unclear. While it's a weapon made from a rifle (SBR), and has an overall length of less than 26 inches, the weapon is actually made from a rifle made from a pistol. So is it made from a rifle, or a pistol? If configured in a format without a stock, does it return to being a pistol? Or is that still an SBR? The ATF has ruled on pistol-rifle-pistol, it hasn't ruled on pistol-SBR-pistol. If it does return to being a pistol, and you then put it in the briefcase, that would be an AOW. But his gun is registered as an SBR. Is that okay? Is it tax paid = tax paid, and fine to be a different Title II firearm? Does he have to pay another $200 and have it registered as both? We don't know. If it doesn't return to being a pistol, but remains an SBR because it's a weapon made from a rifle and has an overall length of less than 26 inches, than that sounds like it's okay being configured as an AOW because it's not an AOW - it's an SBR. There's way too many unknowns because the law is written extremely poorly, shouldn't exist to begin with, and never accounted for a gun that can be a pistol, rifle, SBR, AOW, or machine gun depending on how it's set up. Quoted:
Quoted:
all you have to do is read any law that is out, if not forbidden you are fine. It's just a chassis, if you do not put a stock on it then there's nothing saying it's illegal. A ransom rest is not illegal, nor are bull pup chassis that are out there. But if you write a letter, it's striking a hard line based on some jackasses opinion, variable by who you get, when you get them, what their bias is against scary briefcases and their opinion on whether or not they like it. And after that, it's no longer based on published law and rulings, but that one letter. Unless forbidden in current law it's legal, but once you force their hand there is no flexibility "All you have to do", lol. 26 U.S. Code § 5845
(e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. 18 U.S. Code § 921
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. What Chase is building meets the definition of an AOW. That we know for sure, because putting an MP5K pistol inside the briefcase makes that pistol an AOW. So the next question would be, does it meet the definition of an SBR? This is unclear. While it's a weapon made from a rifle (SBR), and has an overall length of less than 26 inches, the weapon is actually made from a rifle made from a pistol. So is it made from a rifle, or a pistol? If configured in a format without a stock, does it return to being a pistol? Or is that still an SBR? The ATF has ruled on pistol-rifle-pistol, it hasn't ruled on pistol-SBR-pistol. If it does return to being a pistol, and you then put it in the briefcase, that would be an AOW. But his gun is registered as an SBR. Is that okay? Is it tax paid = tax paid, and fine to be a different Title II firearm? Does he have to pay another $200 and have it registered as both? We don't know. If it doesn't return to being a pistol, but remains an SBR because it's a weapon made from a rifle and has an overall length of less than 26 inches, than that sounds like it's okay being configured as an AOW because it's not an AOW - it's an SBR. There's way too many unknowns because the law is written extremely poorly, shouldn't exist to begin with, and never accounted for a gun that can be a pistol, rifle, SBR, AOW, or machine gun depending on how it's set up. And dont forget- my shoelaces are machine guns! 
|
|
IMO, on the idea of building the case and shooting your SBR, I've never seen any indication that there is a lineage to NFA as in SBS/SBR<AOW<MG.
The AOW is a catch-all for stuff that doesn't fit into SBS/SBR/MG. If it's an SBR, then it's NFA. You wouldn't reclassify an MG as an AOW because it's in the case, right? So why would it be needed for an SBR? It's an SBR being fired from a case. The issue is that when you put a title I pistol in the case, it is considered to be in a title II configuration. The SBR is already Title II configuration. How can it change to a different title II configuration. If you have registered receiver HK53 MG, but put a semi pack on it, does it become an SBR? No! it's a MG. The difference is if you have a registered pack and use it on an MP5, an HK53 and a HK21, then the SBR does come into effect on the MP5 and HK53 since the registered pack is the Title II item, and if the MP5 or 53 is used with a semi pack, then they are SBR's On the notion of writing ATF, the precedent is "If you have to ask, it's illegal. Thanks for bringing it to our attention." If you just HAVE to ask, then wait until you know whether you have a possibly more favorable audience there. With the chance that Hilter is elected, it's a question you may wish you'd kept to yourself- a pandoras box of sorts. |
|
Quoted:
IMO, on the idea of building the case and shooting your SBR, I've never seen any indication that there is a lineage to NFA as in SBS/SBR<AOW<MG. The AOW is a catch-all for stuff that doesn't fit into SBS/SBR/MG. If it's an SBR, then it's NFA. You wouldn't reclassify an MG as an AOW because it's in the case, right? So why would it be needed for an SBR? It's an SBR being fired from a case. The issue is that when you put a title I pistol in the case, it is considered to be in a title II configuration. The SBR is already Title II configuration. How can it change to a different title II configuration. If you have registered receiver HK53 MG, but put a semi pack on it, does it become an SBR? No! it's a MG. The difference is if you have a registered pack and use it on an MP5, an HK53 and a HK21, then the SBR does come into effect on the MP5 and HK53 since the registered pack is the Title II item, and if the MP5 or 53 is used with a semi pack, then they are SBR's On the notion of writing ATF, the precedent is "If you have to ask, it's illegal. Thanks for bringing it to our attention." If you just HAVE to ask, then wait until you know whether you have a possibly more favorable audience there. With the chance that Hilter is elected, it's a question you may wish you'd kept to yourself- a pandoras box of sorts. I don't know you, but I like you. 
|
|
And further to my point above if you have an MP5K PDW SBR, and you remove the stock and put the buttcap on, an a forward pistol grip, would it need to be registered as an AOW? No, of course not. It's an SBR. You can configure it as you wish.
However, if you have an SP89 and want to put it in the same configuration, you have to AOW it, and you still can't put a stock on it because that would make it an SBR, not an AOW. So my opinion is an SBR covers an OW configuration, but an AOW doesn't cover an SBR configuration. |
|
Quoted:
And further to my point above if you have an MP5K PDW SBR, and you remove the stock and put the buttcap on, an a forward pistol grip, would it need to be registered as an AOW? No, of course not. It's an SBR. You can configure it as you wish. However, if you have an SP89 and want to put it in the same configuration, you have to AOW it, and you still can't put a stock on it because that would make it an SBR, not an AOW. So my opinion is an SBR covers an OW configuration, but an AOW doesn't cover an SBR configuration. I don't think you can prove the part in red. You're correct that you can't put a stock on the AOW because that would make it an SBR. But when it comes to taking the stock off of an SBR, how does that not create an AOW? It's the exact same logic. I will say I think you're correct, and that an SBR can have the stock removed and set up as an AOW without becoming one...but I can't prove it based on the laws I've already referenced in this topic. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think you can prove the part in red. You're correct that you can't put a stock on the AOW because that would make it an SBR. But when it comes to taking the stock off of an SBR, how does that not create an AOW? It's the exact same logic. I will say I think you're correct, and that an SBR can have the stock removed and set up as an AOW without becoming one...but I can't prove it based on the laws I've already referenced in this topic. Quoted:
Quoted:
And further to my point above if you have an MP5K PDW SBR, and you remove the stock and put the buttcap on, an a forward pistol grip, would it need to be registered as an AOW? No, of course not. It's an SBR. You can configure it as you wish. However, if you have an SP89 and want to put it in the same configuration, you have to AOW it, and you still can't put a stock on it because that would make it an SBR, not an AOW. So my opinion is an SBR covers an OW configuration, but an AOW doesn't cover an SBR configuration. I don't think you can prove the part in red. You're correct that you can't put a stock on the AOW because that would make it an SBR. But when it comes to taking the stock off of an SBR, how does that not create an AOW? It's the exact same logic. I will say I think you're correct, and that an SBR can have the stock removed and set up as an AOW without becoming one...but I can't prove it based on the laws I've already referenced in this topic. It's not actually (the same logic) - because the legal definition of an SBR includes "a weapon made from a rifle" - once it's become an SBR that same firearm cannot become an AOW. Also the reason you need a virgin receiver, or at least one that's never been a rifle, in order to make an AOW in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
It's not actually (the same logic) - because the legal definition of an SBR includes "a weapon made from a rifle" - once it's become an SBR that same firearm cannot become an AOW. Also the reason you need a virgin receiver, or at least one that's never been a rifle, in order to make an AOW in the first place. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And further to my point above if you have an MP5K PDW SBR, and you remove the stock and put the buttcap on, an a forward pistol grip, would it need to be registered as an AOW? No, of course not. It's an SBR. You can configure it as you wish. However, if you have an SP89 and want to put it in the same configuration, you have to AOW it, and you still can't put a stock on it because that would make it an SBR, not an AOW. So my opinion is an SBR covers an OW configuration, but an AOW doesn't cover an SBR configuration. I don't think you can prove the part in red. You're correct that you can't put a stock on the AOW because that would make it an SBR. But when it comes to taking the stock off of an SBR, how does that not create an AOW? It's the exact same logic. I will say I think you're correct, and that an SBR can have the stock removed and set up as an AOW without becoming one...but I can't prove it based on the laws I've already referenced in this topic. It's not actually (the same logic) - because the legal definition of an SBR includes "a weapon made from a rifle" - once it's become an SBR that same firearm cannot become an AOW. Also the reason you need a virgin receiver, or at least one that's never been a rifle, in order to make an AOW in the first place. See my previous posts in this thread. Chase's SBR started life as a pistol. So if he reconfigured it into what would otherwise be considered an AOW configuration, is it made from a rifle? Or a pistol? How far back does the lineage go? As to needing a virgin receiver to make an AOW in the first place, that's because of what's highlighted in red in the AOW definition, not because of what's in the SBR definition: (e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. [Such term shall not include...weapons designed...to be fired from the shoulder] - excluding things like shotguns with the barrel and stock chopped from being AOWs, which is why people start with pistol grip shotguns to make an AOW - but I know you're aware of that. Posting more for those who aren't aware. Now, instead of highlighting "designed", I could highlight "made". As the Form 1 is an application to "make", I think a very good argument could be made that an SBR, since it was "made" to be fired from the shoulder, cannot become an AOW. That's why I *think* what Chase is doing is okay, based on my *interpretation* of the law. But I'm not the one who would be charging him with a criminal offense, so it doesn't really matter what my interpretation is. That's why I think it's prudent for him to write a letter to the tech branch for an opinion. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - MP5K breifcase (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor